Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Haddam board approves 2026–27 budget after debate over stipends, programs and outside funds
Summary
The East Haddam Board of Education approved a proposed $26.29 million 2026–27 budget (a 2.98% increase) after extended discussion about administrative salaries, stipends still in negotiation, professional development, consultant contracts and the use of Rayboard funds. One member recorded opposition but the motion passed.
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The East Haddam Board of Education on Feb. 26 held a special budget workshop and voted to approve the proposed 2026–27 school budget of $26,29,423, a 2.98% increase over the prior year.
Board members and staff spent the meeting reviewing line items and asking for clarifications about administrator pay, program cuts and revenue treatment. A recurring theme was how negotiated stipends, unfilled positions and nonrecurring purchases affect year-to-year comparisons.
At the start of the review a board member questioned why the elementary principal line showed no increase while other administrators reflected raises. Staff said last year’s budget had an entry error that showed next-year contract rates, and that current figures reflect the correct 26–27 contract amounts.
Members pressed for details on several program lines. Staff explained a roughly 30% drop in an elementary remedial-education line resulted from a literacy position that had been budgeted but not filled; Project Lead The Way and other instructional-supply reductions reflected two-year purchase cycles; and a planned Promethean board purchase from the prior year was not repeated, lowering instructional equipment spending.
The board discussed subscriptions and curriculum platforms. Staff said the science platform Mystery Science renews on a multi-year cycle, and math benchmarking costs rose after the district shifted platforms and vendors. Members asked that the district provide clear lists showing who uses each subscription and the renewal cycles.
Several board members raised concerns about a $51,000 aggregated professional-development line and asked staff to provide an itemized breakdown of the many programs pooled there; staff agreed to provide the detailed list. A new $5,000 line earmarked for board professional‑meeting refreshments was flagged for later discussion and potential reduction.
Members also debated membership dues and fees (CABE, CASBO and similar organizations). One speaker urged caution about cutting those memberships, noting that membership services—particularly on policy—have avoided larger legal costs in the past. Another member asked staff for the exact increases so the board could consider reductions if necessary.
Special-education costs and the use of outside consultants were reviewed. Staff said a large increase in psychological/purchase‑service spending reflected a reclassification of BCBA and Effective School Solutions (ESS) supports from tuition to purchase services; ESS was described as a subcontracted consultant serving students at the middle school.
The board asked for clarity about 'Rayboard' revenue reported in the salary lines: staff said $200,000 of Rayboard funds are being applied to certified-teacher costs and that other Rayboard-funded items are paid directly and do not flow through general fund salaries. Members requested that the board be part of the process that decides long-term uses of Rayboard funds.
Food-service budgeting adjustments were discussed: the business office added a $25,000 line to estimate unpaid lunches for families not on free or reduced-price meals, and staff reduced an anomalous $100,000 purchase‑services amount after historical review.
Board members and administrators debated the broader trade-offs. Some members warned that aggressive cuts could create downstream social and fiscal costs for the community; others emphasized the municipality’s pressure for a 0% increase and the need to show fiscal restraint. Multiple members urged radical transparency in reporting and recommended periodic public updates on projected expenses and revenues.
A motion to approve the proposed 2026–27 budget was made and seconded. During the roll call one member recorded opposition; the motion carried. The board adjourned shortly after the vote.
Next steps: staff said they will publish updated budget pages incorporating the numeric corrections discussed and will provide requested breakdowns for professional development, dues and other flagged lines.

